W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > May 2004

Re: QAH outline

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 15:13:23 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org


In the serious time crunch to get a FPWD QAH published before AC Meeting, 
some of your contributions here have been overlooked (by me).  I hope 
you'll pursue them and resubmit them after FPWD, for incorporation into SPWD.


At 02:35 PM 4/20/2004 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:

>Le 20 avr. 2004, à 11:33, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>>>+chronology diagrams.
>>>         * use it but by making it a bit different. To think.
>>I'll try to do it, but if you want to try it instead ... feel free!
>>(If so, please let me know, so that I don't duplicate your efforts.)
>Don't work on it

It is still a placeholder in FPWD, pointing to old one with an Editors Note 
about plans for new one.

>>>How long does it take to
>>>         Think about a new feature?
>>>         Write the prose for it?
>>>         Write the schema/DTD for it?
>>>         Write the test case for it?
>>>         Get the review of WAI, I18N, QA, DI etc for it?
>>>         Get Implemented? (CR)
>>This is good stuff!  I'm not sure exactly how you envision it to be 
>>integrated into the EP&C module.  I'll try.  But if you have a definite 
>>thought, where/how the bits ought to be integrated, I'll implement that 
>>-- please let me know (soon).
>not really. I'm trying to make clear the consequences of things for a 
>chair and its working group, consequences for each new things. I wonder if 
>a box diagram could be one answer. Do you see any kind of steps. We could 
>try to draw an flow chart for this kind of things.
>         Thinking.

Somewhere in here is some good content for QAH -- let's try to develop it 
for SPWD.

>>>         ( [ouside W3C] + Specs translated, features used in the world, 
>>> etc.)
>>I'm not sure I understand that little add-on.  Clarification?
>Out of scope of QAH:
>Once the spec has been translated in takes times:
>         - to translate the specification for larger avaibility 
> (volunteers effort)
>         - to have implemented features used by end users
>         -
>Was thinking that there might be a long process before the complete 
>adoption of a technology

(Still unsure how this might be reflected in the text.)

>>>"""Tips for Getting to Recommendation Faster (section 3) also addresses 
>>>(early) staffing decisions.
>>>Examples: [Collect them here? or scatter them in the above practices; or 
>>>some of both?]"""
>>>-> The whole QAH is to get Recommendation faster ;)
>>Indeed.  Do you suggest to change something specific in the draft?
>It's more about this particular title.
>         Addressing early staffing decisions helps getting rec faster
>         I think the tips could be distributed, you know like these books 
> which have a light bulbs to explain a simple and neat thing.

I hope you'll make specific proposals against FPWD QAH text.

>>>"""Good Practice: Identify Web page(s) for test suites, announcements, 
>>>and other QA deliverables. [was CP4.4]"""
>>>-> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/ for us?
>>I guess so.  Or is it ../QA/WG/QA?  ;)
>>Actually, to other folks I would recommend something like 
>>../<wg-name>/Test, for uniformity.  E.g., ../SVG/Test/ (exists), 
>>../CSS/Test/ (exists), ../Forms/Test/ (exists), etc.
>         Try that ;)
>         http://www.w3.org/QA/Test/
>         Maybe I should reform this page, archive it somewhere and change 
> it to the real Test materials
>>Except ... in our case, I don't know if we are going to have test 
>>materials for the "good faith" Lite QAF.
>Maybe to be thought right away. SpecLite a principle/GL/thingie -> How do 
>I create a test for it. Or what's a test for this particular thing.
>>Are you suggesting that we now need to "eat own dogfood"?  (I.e., finish 
>>our QAPD and post it concurrent with FPWD?)
>I suggest we do to avoid any reproaches

Ugh.  I overlooked this, and I agree we ought to do it.  I see you have 
some stuff on:


I'll try to add to it before publication on Monday.  Perhaps:

** a rudimentary QAWG QAPD (from template)
** an explanation that we don't have test materials (yet)
** explanation that we are considering what they might be for new QAF-lite
** (pointers to decisions and tools about TM for old QAF-heavy)

That, at least, should protect us from the criticism that we're ignoring 
this altogether.

Received on Saturday, 8 May 2004 17:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC